coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Tiszatenyő.
5.  It appears that in October or December 1991 the applicant brought an official liability action against the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Regional Court. She sought damages which she allegedly incurred as a consequence of the 1991 actions of a court bailiff belonging to the subordinate Szolnok District Court, when the bailiff was executing some claims enforceable on the applicant’s property.
6.  On 24 November 1994 the Supreme Court appointed the Hajdú-Bihar County Regional Court to hear the case. On 2 December 1996 the applicant requested the court to give her case priority.
7.  In January 1997 the defendant submitted its observations in reply to the applicant’s claims. Hearings took place on 27 January and 10 March1997. On the latter date, the proceedings were suspended pending the adjudication of another case. That case was terminated on 13 October 1998. However, it appears that the applicant only notified the Regional Court of this fact, requesting the continuation of the proceedings, in October 1999. She repeatedly requested the resumption of the proceedings in January 2003. Simultaneously, she challenged the Regional Court for bias. On 4 June 2003 the Supreme Court ordered that the case be transferred to the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court.
8.  This court held a hearing on 17 October 2003. On 22 October 2003 it dismissed the action.
9.  On appeal, on 19 February 2004 the Budapest Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court.
10.  In the resumed proceedings, the Regional Court held a hearing on 28 June 2004. On 2 July 2004 it delivered a decision, which was partly upheld and partly quashed by the Court of Appeal on 25 November 2004.
11.  Concerning the claims still pending, the Regional Court held hearings on 28 February and 29 April 2005. Two experts were appointed who submitted their opinions on 21 June and 6 October 2005, respectively.
12.  On 26 October 2005 the Regional Court awarded the applicant some damages and dismissed the remainder of her claims.
13.  The applicant appealed to the Debrecen Court of Appeal in January 2006. The proceedings are still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in London.
5.  The applicant founded Notareal Oy, which was a Finnish investment and industrial holding company, in 1985. He was managing director of the company from 1985 to 1991. He was also a shareholder in the company. In April 1992 he was questioned by the police and taken into custody. On 8 May 1994 he was charged with criminal offences under Finnish law allegedly committed during the period of 1988-1991. Eight other defendants were also charged. The charges, contained in 12 indictments (ten of which involved the applicant) covered over eighty counts, including offences of aggravated tax fraud, debtor’s dishonesty, accounting irregularities and aggravated fraud.
6.  On 25 May 1994 the trial in the Espoo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) began. The District Court heard 220 witnesses. It convened 71 times. There were over 7,000 pages of pre-trial investigation reports. In addition, six victims presented their own criminal claims and claims for compensation.
7.  On 14 February 1997 the District Court decided on all charges save indictment no.12. It found the applicant guilty of two tax offences and two accounting irregularities and sentenced him to a suspended term of imprisonment of 11 months as well as ordering him to pay compensation to the State in sums totalling FIM 1,596,850 (some 260,000 Euros). The charges on indictment no. 12 (the Yli-Takkula golf course charge) were rejected in a separate judgment by the District Court on 25 September 1998. The Government stated they were dealt with separately as they also concerned two defendants who had absconded. They explained that the District Court had ordered their detention in absentia on 19 September 1995. One of them was apprehended on 25 January 1997 and the other arrested in Spain in February 1997.
8.  All parties in the case appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten), which re-heard eight witnesses in an oral hearing. On 6 July 2000, it affirmed the conviction of the applicant by the District Court in respect of the four charges and convicted him additionally on 17 of the earlier rejected charges. The convictions were based on the evidence given by witnesses in the District Court in respect of the four charges and in the Court of Appeal, such as the applicant’s colleagues, accountants and liquidators, and on various documents regarding the financial state of the company and the applicant’s actions. The applicant was sentenced to six year’s imprisonment, his military rank was forfeited, and he was ordered to pay damages amounting to FIM 97,396,171 (some 16,000,000 Euros) as well as legal fees amounting to FIM 1,640,000 (some 280,000 Euros).
9.  On 21 March 2001 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal.
6.  On 26 April 1993 the applicant was taken into custody in Marmaris by police officers from the Muğla Security Department on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation, and he was held in custody until 21 May 1993.
7.  On 21 May 1993 the Siirt Civil Court of First Instance ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.
8.  On 8 June 1993 the Public Prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal terrorist organisation and aiding and abetting the said organization, contrary to Article 125 of the Turkish Criminal Code.
9.  On 16 June 1993 the Diyarbakır State Security Court commenced the trial against the applicant and two other suspects and prolonged the applicant’s detention.
10.  The State Security Court considered the applicant’s continued detention on 58 occasions, either on its own motion or upon the applicant’s request. On each occasion, the applicant’s continued detention was ordered having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of evidence and the content of the file.
11.  On 27 December 2001, after holding 58 hearings, the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 146 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to death, since commuted to life imprisonment.
12.  On 10 July 2002, upon the applicant’s appeal, the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the State Security Court.
8.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Chełm, Poland.
9.  On 10 September 1994 the applicant began serving a sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment that he had received for robbery on an unknown date.
10.  On 16 December 1994 the Lublin Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) charged him with homicide. On the same day the prosecutor also ordered that the applicant be detained on remand.
11.  At the beginning of December 1995 the Regional Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki). The applicant was indicted on charges of homicide, aggravated robbery and possessing a firearm and ammunition without a licence.
12.  On 11 August 2000 the Lublin Regional Court convicted him of armed robbery and possessing a firearm and ammunition without a licence.
13.  On 26 April 2001, on the applicant’s appeal, the Lublin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) partly amended the first-instance judgment.
14.  The applicant did not file a cassation appeal (kasacja) with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyzszy).
15.  The applicant produced 6 envelopes. Some of them contain letters. All envelopes bear traces of having been opened after having been sealed; their sides were cut open and, in some instances, resealed with adhesive paper tape.
16.  On an unknown date in December 1997 the applicant wrote a letter to his defence counsel. The envelope bears stamps: “Censored” (“cenzurowano”) and “ 1997-12-9”.
17.  On 17 July 1998 the applicant’s defence counsel sent a letter to him. The envelope bears a stamp that reads: “Censored. R[egional] C[ourt] Lublin”. A hand written note indicates that on 21 July 1998 the letter was received at the Regional Court’s registry and posted to the applicant on the same day.
18.  On 28 September 1998 a letter that the applicant received from the Constitutional Court was opened and stamped “censored” by the Lublin Regional Court.
19.  On 21 October and 9 November 1998 the Regional Court opened and stamped “censored” 2 letters sent to the applicant by a certain O.K., his sister-in-law (“O.K.”).
20.  On 15 April 1999 the Regional Court opened and censored a letter sent to the applicant by the Court’s Registry on 6 April 1999. In that letter the registry informed the applicant that his defence counsel had been asked to provide more detailed information of his trial. A copy of the registry’s letter to the counsel – which, in addition to the request for information, contained an explanation as to why the applicant’s complaint about the length of detention lacked prospects of success – was enclosed with that letter.
4.  On 13 December 1994, the applicant sold a horse to A.G. for PLN 2,500. Two days later the buyer returned the horse claiming that it was ill. The applicant was therefore forced to pay the costs of the horse’s upkeep during the following year. As A.G. constantly refused to take the horse back, the applicant sold it to another buyer, as he could not afford the costs of upkeep.
5.  On 25 January 1995 A.G. lodged a suit against the applicant with the Tarnobrzeg District Court, claiming payment of the price.
6.  On 14 March 1995 the applicant lodged a counter-claim for costs of the upkeep of the horse.
7.  During the first hearing on 15 March 1995 the court admitted witness evidence and adjourned the case.
8.  On 5 April 1995 the court heard witnesses and adjourned the case.
9.  On 22 May 1995 the court admitted in evidence an opinion of a veterinary surgeon and adjourned the case.
10.  On 25 July 1995 the expert submitted the opinion, stating that the horse was well and had never been ill.
11.  On 6 September 1995 the court called an expert in agriculture, who estimated that the costs of upkeep of the horse had greatly exceeded its value. The court adjourned the case.
12.  On 2 October 1995 the court heard the parties.
13.  On 11 October 1995 the court delivered a judgment. Both parties appealed.
14.  On 28 March 1996 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court returned the case file to the District Court to have it completed.
15.  On 5 September 1996 the Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.
16.  On 16 January 1997 the parties declared that they could not reach a friendly settlement.
17.  On 9 October 1997 the court admitted the evidence of a witness and adjourned the case.
18.  On 10 February 1997 a witness was heard and the case was adjourned.
19.  On 9 April 1998 further witnesses were heard.
20.  On 2 June 1998 the court admitted in evidence another expert’s opinion.
21.  On 18 January 1999 the expert submitted the opinion.
22.  On 31 March 1999 the court summoned the expert and adjourned the case.
23.  On 5 May 1999 the court found that the plaintiff had not paid an advance for the expert’s opinion and adjourned the case until 2 June 1999. The expert failed to attend the hearing on that day and the case was adjourned until 25 June.
24.  On 19 November 1999 the District Court delivered a judgment, ordering PLN 4,690 to be paid by the applicant with interest from 1995, and 903 PLN to be paid by A.G. to the applicant.
25.  On 13 April 2000 the Tarnobrzeg Regional Court dismissed the appeals of both parties.
6.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Nedelišče.
7.  On 29 November 1981 the applicant was injured in a car accident which was caused by V.D.
8. On 16 May 1988 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against V.D. in the Celje Basic Court, Velenje Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Celju, Enota v Velenju), seeking damages for the injuries sustained.
On 24 March 1994 the court upheld the applicant’s claim in part.
On 28 June 1994 the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia.
On 29 June 1994, forward to the applicant’s appeal of 20 April 1994, the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case for re-examination.
The decision was served on the applicant on 17 August 1994.
9. Further to the reorganisation of the Slovenian judicial system, the case was transferred to the Celje District Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) on 30 December 1994.
On 13 February 1997 the judge to whom the case had been assigned was promoted and the case was consequently reassigned to a new judge.
Between 6 September 1994 and 2 June 1999 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
A hearing was held on 3 June 1999.
On 30 June 1999 the court delivered a judgment.
The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 7 December 1999.
10. On 22 December 1999 V.D. appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).
On 4 July 2001 the court dismissed the appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 29 August 2001.
5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Velenje.
6.  On 21 January 1997 the applicant was injured in an accident at work in a lignite mine. The applicant’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 24 July 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 1,215,600 tolars (approximately 5,000 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 3 February 1999 and 23 April 2002 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 11 February and 12 November 1998 he made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the five hearings held between 11 December 1998 and 24 September 2002 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert who was ultimately replaced by another medical expert.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 20 November 2002.
8.  On 22 November 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and further requested that the first-instance court corrects its judgment for typos and miscalculations. ZT cross-appealed.
On 27 November 2002 the first-instance court corrected the judgment. The decision was served on the applicant on 29 November 2002.
On 7 April 2004 the Celje Higher Court allowed both appeals in part, decreased the damages awarded and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination of the decision on costs and expenses.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 4 May 2004
ZT requested that the court corrected the judgment for miscalculations.
On 13 May 2004 the court corrected the judgment.
On 4 June 2004 this decision was served on the applicant.
9.  On 8 October 2004 the first-instance court delivered a new decision on costs and expenses.
10.  On 19 October 2004 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.
On 9 November 2005 the court allowed the appeal and increased the amount awarded for costs and expenses. The decision was served on the applicant on 21 November 2005.
5.  The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Rome.
6.  The applicant is the owner of two flats in Rome, which he had respectively let to C.C. and G.C.
7.  In a registered letter of 14 June 1991, the applicant informed the tenants that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.
8.  In a writ served on the tenants on 16 January 1992, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenants to appear before the Rome Magistrate.
9.  By a decision of 16 April 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 March 1993.
10.  On 11 March 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.
11.  On 25 March 1995, he informed the tenants that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 5 May 1995.
12.  On 5 May 1995, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession of the flats which proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.
13.  Pursuant to Law no. 241/90, on 2 November 1995, the applicant addressed himself to the Prefectoral Committee in order to be granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.
14.  The Prefectoral Committee informed the applicant that priority was given to landlords urgently requiring premises as accommodation for themselves, their spouses, children or ascendants and for seeking priority treatment he should have made a statutory declaration.
15.  On 11 September 1999, the Rome Magistrate set the date of the eviction proceedings for 10 January 2000.
16.  Then, pursuant to Law no. 388 of 23 December 2000, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 29 June 2001; Law-Decree no. 247/01 suspended them until 31 December 2001 and Law-Decree no. 450/01 suspended them until 30 June 2002.
17.  On 25 November 2002, the applicant recovered possession of the flat which he had let to C.C.
18.  Pursuant to Law no. 200 of 24 August 2003, Law-Decree no. 147/03 suspended the enforcement proceedings until 30 June 2004.
19.  On an unspecified date in 2003, it appears that the applicant has recovered possession of the flat.
5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in the town of Rodinske, the Donetsk region.
6.  In 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Krasnoarmiysk Town Court against the State Enterprise Rodinska Mine (the “MR”), seeking recovery of salary arrears and compensation. By decision of 13 January 1999, the court awarded the applicant UAH 3,204.07[1] in salary arrears and other payments.
7.  On 4 February 2003 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy of Ukraine liquidated the MR and appointed the State Enterprise “Krasnoarmiyskvugillya” as the MR’s successor.
8.  On 9 October 2003 the Bailiffs’ Service informed the applicant that the judgment in his favour could not be executed due to the lack of funds of the debtor and that the procedure for the forced sale of assets belonging to the debtor was blocked by the Law on the Introduction of a Moratorium on the Forced Sale of Property of 29 November 2001.
9.  In 2003 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Krasnoarmiysk Town Court against the State Enterprise “Krasnoarmiyskvugillya” for compensation. By decision of 26 November 2003, the court awarded the applicant UAH 1,312.38[2] in compensation.
10.  On 25 April 2005 the judgments in the applicant’s favour were enforced in full.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Vukovar.
5.  The applicant had a specially protected tenancy of a flat in Vukovar. However, between 5 June 1997 and 24 February 2004 he lived and worked in Zagreb as Assistant Minister of Justice.
6.  Following the peaceful reintegration of the Vukovar region, on 10 May 1998 certain S.Z. and D.Z. occupied the applicant’s flat.
7.  On 30 April 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Vukovar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Vukovaru) to have S.Z. and D.Z. (“the respondents”) evicted.
8.  On 10 December 1999 the court accepted the applicant’s claim and ordered the respondents to vacate the flat. It observed that the applicant had a specially protected tenancy of the flat and that the respondents had only been granted temporary use.
9.  On 9 February 2000 the Vukovar County Court (Županijski sud u Vukovaru) dismissed the respondents’ appeal.
10.  On 10 March 2000 the applicant sought enforcement of the Municipal Court’s judgment of 10 December 1999. On 21 April 2000 the Vukovar Municipal Court issued an eviction order. The respondents appealed, but their appeal was dismissed by the Vukovar County Court on 31 May 2002.
11.  The applicant subsequently filed a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act complaining about the length of the proceedings. On 16 May 2003 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) declared his complaint inadmissible.
12.  On 30 September 2003 a court bailiff went to the flat with a view to carrying out the eviction order, but the applicant agreed with the debtors to postpone the eviction until 20 November 2003. He asked for postponement on several occasions after that date.
13.  On 29 January 2004 the respondents delivered the keys to the flat to the applicant.
14.  On 6 February 2004 the Vukovar Municipal Court concluded the enforcement proceedings.
5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Vransko.
6.  On 15 April 1997 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZM.
7.  On 15 January 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZM in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,017,819 Slovenian tolars (approximately 8,410 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 1 September 1998 and 29 October 2001 the applicant lodged six preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 4 March 1999 and 7 June 2000 she made four requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the two hearings held on 25 September 2000 and 29 October 2001, neither was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed three medical experts.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 17 December 2001.
8.  On 19 December 2001 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).
On 2 April 2003 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and accordingly increased the damages awarded.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 23 April 2003.
9.  On 24 April 2003 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 13 October 2004 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 25 November 2004.